The petitioner, Shushilaben Jayantibhai Patel, an 82-year-old senior citizen suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, hypertension, and diabetes, approached the court after her revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was rejected by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara.

The dispute arose from the Assessment Year 2017–18, when Patel failed to file her income tax return. According to her counsel, the lapse was not deliberate but stemmed from her deteriorating health and the negligence of her accountant and manager.

Despite the missed filing, Patel had paid ₹3,79,710 in taxes through challan in May 2020 and submitted the audit report for the year. Her plea before the Commissioner sought revision of the assessment order, but the authority dismissed it, holding that the responsibility to file returns under Section 139 rests squarely on the assessee.

The Revenue defended its stance by pointing to Patel’s cash deposit of ₹17.46 lakh during the demonetization period, arguing that she ignored repeated notices and failed to respond during assessment and revision proceedings. However, the High Court noted that Patel had consistently filed returns in other years (2014–15, 2015–16, 2018–19, and 2020–21), demonstrating her compliance record.

The Division bench of Justice Pranav Trivedi and Justice A.S. Supehia emphasised that Section 264 confers wide discretionary powers on the Commissioner to prevent miscarriage of justice. Citing precedents such as C. Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1979) and a 2024 coordinate bench ruling, the court reiterated that the Commissioner’s revisional jurisdiction is meant to provide relief, not deny it on technicalities.

The bench observed that while Patel did err in not responding to notices, her advanced age and medical condition could not be ignored.

The court criticised the Commissioner for failing to exercise discretion judicially and for overlooking documentary evidence of tax payment and audit compliance. It held that the rejection of Patel’s application was arbitrary and contrary to settled law.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the Commissioner’s order dated 29 March 2022 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Commissioner has been directed to re-examine the assessment and pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks.